Xref: utzoo news.groups:10231 news.misc:3236 sci.misc:3632 talk.religion.newage:3469 talk.philosophy.misc:2511 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!arc!ken From: ken@arc.UUCP (Ken Stuart) Newsgroups: news.groups,news.misc,sci.misc,talk.religion.newage,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: *** CALL FOR DISCUSSION *** Creation of newsgroup sci.skeptic Keywords: new age new science parapsychology skepticism Message-ID: <387@arc.UUCP> Date: 20 Jun 89 01:23:15 GMT References: <2357@yunexus.UUCP> <1582@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> <1961@se-sd.NCR.COM> <1711@optilink.UUCP> <22269@joyce.istc.sri.com> Sender: news@arc.UUCP Reply-To: ken@arc.UUCP (Ken Stuart) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Advansoft Research Corp, Santa Clara, CA Lines: 45 In-reply-to: salem@coco3.uucp (Bruce Salem) In article <22269@joyce.istc.sri.com>, salem@coco3 (Bruce Salem) writes: > > It may seem a waste to have people insist on a view against all >objections and arguments to the contrary. They either show themselves as >fools to the rest of us, or they have something to say that isn't being >heard, but the dialog is a start. Hmm, in the case of some New Age (and rec.audio for that matter!) ideas, they often derive from personal experience. In such cases, this cannot be verified by someone else, but also cannot be denied by the experiencer, simply because of some rational argument, by either himself or someone else. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable desire for people who have experienced such things to discuss details, new books, etc. among themselves, just as with skiing, Dr. Who, or the Grateful Dead. It is interesting that I have never seen messages in rec.skiing saying "Skiing sucks, you are all such fools to waste your money!", nor have I seen such messages in rec.arts.drwho. Maybe people don't feel threatened by skiing or Dr. Who. Else why would they go to all the trouble of skeptical groups and so forth. In any event, maybe we need both: talk.religion.newage.discussion talk.religion.newage.information > Over and over again in the talk and sci groups people lose sight >of the idea that the method is more important than the result in any >argument that doesn't appeal directly to faith. A group that deals directly >with method, even if to hone skepticism, would be a good idea. > I am not sure I know what you mean here. Can you be more explicit? Thanks. -- - Ken ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply to : apple!arc!ken \ Disclaimer: All the above is solely sun!apple!arc!ken \ the opinion of the author ken@arc.UUCP arc!ken@apple.COM \ and not those of his employer. ====================================================================== "I only believe in you." - Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, Howe ----------------------------------------------------------------------